Israel’s Law of Return has been at the center of debate both inside and outside of Israel. The law states that every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel. But there have been many contested cases in which individuals self-identified as Jews, but their applications for immigration under the Law of Return was denied. This research seeks to explain why the state has not accepted their applications or their claims to be Jewish by looking at three Supreme Court cases and their coverage in the press. This paper will show that while individuals feel they have a connection to the Jewish people and Israel, this feeling is not always reciprocal. There are many factors involved. The most important factors are the implementation of the Law of Return by the Interior Ministry and the interpretation of the Law of Return by justices of Supreme Court adjudicating contested claims. The court judgments have decided that the most important marker of being Jewish seems to be attaining or retaining a connection to the Jewish people, where the underlying rationale for rejection or acceptance of an applicant’s claims is based upon a historical and ethno-cultural religious perspective.